Milk Or Water: California Bill Aims To Curb Kids’ Soda Drinking At Restaurants

[ElChupacabra]

"Better Living Through Regulation - DNC"

Because the state known better than parents?
Because freedom for the lesser classes is overrated?



Over the top? Most certainly. But then again: "Better Living Through Regulation - DNC"

I'm just glad that the nation dodged the Hillary bullet.

So what you're saying is that if people are making decisions that affect not only themselves but the cost of healthcare for others, we should just sit back and do nothing because "freedom"?

 

[ElChupacabra]

Did I stutter?

No, you just didn't make sense.

 

[trixare4kids]

I'm having a hard time understanding where you see the parents choices are affected by the default beverage that comes with a kid's meal. If they want their kid to have a soda, then they just ask for one no different than if they want onion rings instead of fries. By making other beverage options a default (just like soda was made a default item) it steers people to better options and they have to make the choice of having the unhealthier one. This isn't "social justice", it's trying to help curb an rapidly growing problem.

It's OK to suggest healthy guidelines, but making default type legislation milk or water with the child's meal is nanny state overreach.
How many times do I need to say, parent's know what is best for their children until it is proven that they are 1)negligent, 2) abusive parents?

 

[Hawkeye10]

No, you just didn't make sense.

I doubt that you are trying very hard, because this is not very hard to understand.

 

[ElChupacabra]

It's OK to suggest healthy guidelines, but making default type legislation milk or water with the child's meal is nanny state overreach.
How many times do I need to say, parent's know what is best for their children until it is proven that they are 1)negligent, 2) abusive parents?

You can repeat yourself as often as you like but it has no bearing because they can make whatever choice they want. No one is hiding the soda or telling parents their kids can't have one.

 

[ElChupacabra]

I doubt that you are trying very hard, because this is not very hard to understand.

No I get it, you're just complaining about a choice that's taken away that isn't.

 

[Hawkeye10]

It's OK to suggest healthy guidelines, but making default type legislation milk or water with the child's meal is nanny state overreach.
How many times do I need to say, parent's know what is best for their children until it is proven that they are 1)negligent, 2) abusive parents?

The mandating of extra time and/or extra expense if one chooses to defy the state, as well as increasingly likely social pressure as we get closer to UTOPIA if we indeed do....for what we choose to eat and drink?

When we know that the state constantly grabs for more power so defying the state ordered mandates will almost certainly get more costly....

In what is increasingly a snitch culture, because that is what our leaders have wanted...

**** THAT!

 

[Hawkeye10]

No I get it, you're just complaining about a choice that's taken away that isn't.

You have failed to comprehend. See Post #232 for tutoring.

 

[eohrnberger]

So what you're saying is that if people are making decisions that affect not only themselves but the cost of healthcare for others, we should just sit back and do nothing because "freedom"?

By that logic you've just turned over any freedom of choice in your entire life to the government.

Name one thing that a person consumes that couldn't be linked to health outcomes in some way, and, inevitably, would be used as a justification to control everything a person is allowed to consume by the government all in the name of 'the cost of healthcare for others'.

No, you can't have that high paying job, because the stress isn't good for you, and will cause you health problems that the government will have to pay for.

No, you can't start you own business, because studies have shown that people who own and run their own businesses have to work too many long hours, and that'd be a negative health outcome for you. Better to work this mindless government job for less pay.

There is literal no aspect of life and life decisions that doesn't affect health in some way, so once you let the government decide even one of those, they'll crawl in and decide all of them for you eventually.

The government that governs least, governs best, from my view.

But, hey, if you want to give up the ability to make any decisions for yourself, be my guest. Just don't expect me and many others to follow that path.

 

[Hawkeye10]

The assholes claim "We are helping families!".....Hogwash, this bullying is yet another attack on the family, by a Feminist/State cooperative that has launched so many before this....which the nation is suffering tremendously for.

I am done, I am a FreeMan, and I intend to stay a FreeMan.

 

[ElChupacabra]

By that logic you've just turned over any freedom of choice in your entire life to the government.

Name one thing that a person consumes that couldn't be linked to health outcomes in some way, and, inevitably, would be used as a justification to control everything a person is allowed to consume by the government all in the name of 'the cost of healthcare for others'.

No, you can't have that high paying job, because the stress isn't good for you, and will cause you health problems that the government will have to pay for.

No, you can't start you own business, because studies have shown that people who own and run their own businesses have to work too many long hours, and that'd be a negative health outcome for you. Better to work this mindless government job for less pay.

There is literal no aspect of life and life decisions that doesn't affect health in some way, so once you let the government decide even one of those, they'll crawl in and decide all of them for you eventually.

The government that governs least, governs best, from my view.

But, hey, if you want to give up the ability to make any decisions for yourself, be my guest. Just don't expect me and many others to follow that path.

That's a big step you're taking there. Government has always had a hand in setting the parameters, and one can certainly argue about how much or how little is required. I grow more concerned when choice is taken away, because that's a more perilous road to travel. In this case making the choices you have lean toward the better ones for your health isn't the same as any of the ones you described.

 

[ElChupacabra]

You have failed to comprehend. See Post #232 for tutoring.

I get it, I just don't agree.

 

[eohrnberger]

That's a big step you're taking there. Government has always had a hand in setting the parameters, and one can certainly argue about how much or how little is required. I grow more concerned when choice is taken away, because that's a more perilous road to travel. In this case making the choices you have lean toward the better ones for your health isn't the same as any of the ones you described.

Give'em an inch, they take a mile.
Better not to open that particular Pandora's box, if you ask me.
Putting the toothpaste back into that particular tube will be neigh impossible.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Give'em an inch, they take a mile.
Better not to open that particular Pandora's box, if you ask me.
Putting the toothpaste back into that particular tube will be neigh impossible.

There have been attempts at harsher policies like the Sugary Drinks Portion Cap Rule that passed in NYC not too long ago. That's a ban of beverages of a certain size, and is a restriction of choice which I don't support. Making the healthier option a default doesn't stop you from selecting the option you want.

 

[tac138777]

Jesus Christ the bill doesn't actually stop you from buying your kid a coke calm the **** down

The fact that they are even remotely spending time discussing or suggesting it is a travesty. It proves that Democrats left to their own devices will create a bunch of nanny state lunacy. It is like giving shots to a toddler and the keys to a Buick. Something bad is going to happen. The only thing keeping that **** hole in check is the federal government. **** I can’t wait till that hell hole slides off into the ocean.

 

[eohrnberger]

There have been attempts at harsher policies like the Sugary Drinks Portion Cap Rule that passed in NYC not too long ago. That's a ban of beverages of a certain size, and is a restriction of choice which I don't support. Making the healthier option a default doesn't stop you from selecting the option you want.

SACRAMENTO (CBS13) — A new state bill would give kids two options with their meals at restaurants—water or milk. Senate Bill 1192 would make water or milk the default drink for kids meals in a push to reduce obesity and access to sugary drinks for children.
The bill passed the Assembly and is on its way to Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk. If he signs it, California would be the first state in the nation to have such a law.
https://www.debatepolitics.com/redi...bslocal.com/2018/08/16/kids-soda-restaurants/

Government push. The question is if its really needed? In the past, PSAs were issued. Anyone know of the efficacy of those?

Renae signature is spot on: Better Living Through Regulation - DNC

 

[Thoreau72]

Interesting coming from one who distrusts government in most cases. If you can't see the harm, I can't help you. (Couldn't the harm be in that this is a first step in taking away more of the parents rights/discretion?

You must have agreed with the rest of what I stated. Good to know you support poorly written laws. :lamo

That you cannot even begin to describe the potential harm tells me everything I need to know Michael. You want me to embrace the idea of some harm that you cannot even describe. Things have not changed sir.

 

[mike2810]

That you cannot even begin to describe the potential harm tells me everything I need to know Michael. You want me to embrace the idea of some harm that you cannot even describe. Things have not changed sir.

What part of this didn't you understand, "Couldn't the harm be in that this is a first step in taking away more of the parents rights/discretion?".


Here is a CT for you. The law was written to support the States dairy/milk industry. Two choices milk or water. ( unless you ask for something else).

 

[ElChupacabra]

Government push. The question is if its really needed? In the past, PSAs were issued. Anyone know of the efficacy of those?

Renae signature is spot on: Better Living Through Regulation - DNC

The rising obesity rates in this country and the rest of the industrialized world are showing this is becoming a serious problem. I don't know what the efficacy of PSAs are, but suggestions don't always work unless there's something to back them up. I don't see regulation as an entirely negative thing as others do, the problem is keeping it in balance so it doesn't become overbearing and restrictive. The government has done this before regarding smoking, or on a larger scale in how companies dispose of their waste bi-products. Are you saying these should be eliminated because they're regulations?

 

[Thoreau72]

What part of this didn't you understand, "Couldn't the harm be in that this is a first step in taking away more of the parents rights/discretion?".


Here is a CT for you. The law was written to support the States dairy/milk industry. Two choices milk or water. ( unless you ask for something else).

In one location for a period of time this law takes away rights and discretion? Do the parents have an obligation to have their children eat sound and nutritious food?

I do understand your point that the dairy industry may be behind this. If true, I would not be surprised in the least. But somebody needs to demonstrate that claim first.

Meantime, having a restricted number of choices on a menu is hardly an infringement of rights. Next thing you will be complaining because laws prohibit youngsters and parents from "having the choice" to buy and consume cigarettes.

 

[ElChupacabra]

What part of this didn't you understand, "Couldn't the harm be in that this is a first step in taking away more of the parents rights/discretion?".


Here is a CT for you. The law was written to support the States dairy/milk industry. Two choices milk or water. ( unless you ask for something else).

The thing is those are not your only choices. You can order a soda in place of either of those. What you're really arguing is people having to ask for soda is the infringement on "choice", which is odd since someone chose to put the soda in that meal to begin with.

 

[cabse5]

The point of the bill is to cut down the amount of soda that children drink. Childhood obesity is a legitimate concern and the consumption of sugary drinks is a big part of the problem. Anyone who wants to feed their kids soda is free to do so.

If some, like you, are so concerned with child obesity, why don't you mandate, as well, exercise classes for students? You know, in my day, it was mandatory to get sweaty and take a shower every day of school.

 

[mike2810]

The thing is those are not your only choices. You can order a soda in place of either of those. What you're really arguing is people having to ask for soda is the infringement on "choice", which is odd since someone chose to put the soda in that meal to begin with.

In a past post I stated it was a poorly written law. It is a "feel good" law. I agree, in the end it does nothing. Parents will order the drink their kid wants or what they will allow the child to have.

Would you agree that the law was not really needed. Especially since some fast food places had already made changes to what is offer in a "kids meal".

 

[ElChupacabra]

In a past post I stated it was a poorly written law. It is a "feel good" law. I agree, in the end it does nothing. Parents will order the drink their kid wants or what they will allow the child to have.

Would you agree that the law was not really needed. Especially since some fast food places had already made changes to what is offer in a "kids meal".

I think the law has good intentions, but how effective it will be is another question. I think the need is there when you consider the obesity issue in this country, but how you manage it becomes trickier because banning options enters a slippery slope in regards to the role of the government. I know McDonald's had already changed its kid's meal options a few years ago so this could bring in other fast food chains which may have not done so already. This bill isn't going to radically change anything because ultimately it's up to the individual, but to not make the unhealthiest options the default in some cases doesn't seem like a bad thing either.

 

[JMR]

If some, like you, are so concerned with child obesity, why don't you mandate, as well, exercise classes for students? You know, in my day, it was mandatory to get sweaty and take a shower every day of school.

Where I live children do have Physical Education classes, and a daily recess. Showers ended a long time ago, even before my time. There are afternoon clubs and intramurals and school sports teams. A long time ago this nation decided that educational matters were for the most part a local matter. If your schools do no offer such activities don't assume they do not exist else where.

I agree that California is ahead of the curve on a lot of these matters and pass laws that grate a bit. But I fail to see a reason to go full steam ahead defending soda for children's lunch.

There is equal outrage over the banning of plastic straws. Micro plastics are a huge environmental problem. They do not break down, and are eaten by small animals and move up the food chain. Drinking from a glass or can without a straw is quite possible, though probably difficult while driving, which is another matter entirely. I grew up with paper straws, they worked fine.